ROB CAPRIO SAID:
>>> "The extracted bullets [from J.D. Tippit's body] did not match the
gun Lee Harvey Oswald had when he was arrested, how do you explain that?" <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The bullets were too mutilated, idiot. (Joe Nicol did say one bullet could
be linked to Oswald's gun, though.)
>>> "Automatic shells were found." <<<
No, they weren't.
No automatic shells are in the record. And furthermore, no automatic
weapon could have been involved, because witnesses verify that Oswald
(who was the ONLY person toting a gun on 10th St.) was emptying a
REVOLVER....not an automatic.
Guess what? You're still batting triple-oh.
>>> "Also, the .38 shells in the National Archives do not match the revolver LHO had when he was arrested either, how do you explain this?" <<<
You're full of shit. The ONLY shells in evidence perfectly match
Oswald's S&W revolver. No amount of kookcrap you utter will change
>>> "They took two Remingtons and two Winchesters from Tippit, but the shells consisted of three Winchesters and one Remington. How do you explain this?" <<<
And what do you offer as an alternate solution to the "Oswald Did It"
scenario here? Do you think that somebody with an automatic plugged
Tippit with the exact type of bullet brands that Oswald happened to
have in his gun on 11/22?
And do you think the goofball plotters decided to plant some shells on
Tenth Street, but they failed to get the mixture of shells aligned
correctly with the bullets in Tippit?
How did the plotters manage to "plant" the real Oswald on 10th St.,
who was seen dumping shells in the Davises' yard?
Let's hear your alternate CT scenario and see if it can stand on its
own two legs.
>>> "They were from an automatic pistol according to the police on the scene." <<<
Not one policeman saw a single "automatic" shell. Not one.
You know why? Because all four shells in evidence are from Oswald's
gun, which was not an automatic.
Explain that. (Can you do that without pretending that the cops
>>> "Answer this for me, if LHO shot JDT with a revolver, why did he leave incriminating evidence like "spent shells" when he could have taken them with him?" <<<
Oh goodie. Now I have to play psychologist in order to explain the
evidence left behind. And if I can't come up with a good psychological
report to explain Mr. Oswald's actions on 11/22, then Rob-Kook gets to
believe that the evidence left behind by Oswald never existed. Is that
How many more flimsy excuses have you got in your ten-gallon hat so
you can pretend your favorite patsy is innocent? Quite a few, no
>>> "Do you have proof his [LHO's] gun had been fired?" <<<
Four bullets from Oswald's gun went into Tippit's body on 11/22/63,
idiot. So, yes, I have ample proof. (Via the shells and via the fact
that the ONLY GUNMAN on Tenth Street was named Lee H. Oswald.)
But Mr. Tippit will be glad to know that the guy who shot and killed
him couldn't have done it.
J.D.'s probably still alive in Florida. How 'bout that?
>>> "Do you have a match between his gun and the bullets in JDT?" <<<
Joseph Nicol says so.
But even without such a match, it doesn't matter, because there was
only ONE person firing a gun on 10th St. on 11/22, and that one person
was LHO, and LHO had a revolver on him when arrested, and that
revolver was linked to all four shells littering the front and side
yards of the Davis property.
>>> "I think the odds are great [due] to the real killer using a combination of those types of ammo in his automatic pistol, whoever he was." <<<
Nice coincidence that the "real" killer happened to have Remington and
Winchester missiles in his gun too that day.
And it was damn lucky for those always-fortunate plotters that the
bullets were too mangled to ELIMINATE Oswald's revolver as the murder
And it was also lucky that one of those bullets from a NON-Oswald gun
that went into Tippit was (somehow) identified positively as a bullet
from OSWALD'S gun by Joseph D. Nicol, huh?
I guess Mr. Nicol must have been on the conspirators' payroll
too....right, Mr. Kook? Because you claim that an "automatic" gun
killed Tippit; but Nicol says otherwise. Go figure. ~shrug~
>>> "You are not mentioning that the prints on JDT's car, taken from where witnesses said the killer leaned, did not match LHO, how come?" <<<
Citation please? (Something you never, ever provide.)
Anyway, your point is moot, because the evidence shows that Oswald
FOLDED HIS ARMS and then leaned against the patrol car's door. (Was
Oswald supposed to leave an identifiable "forearm print" on the car?
And while wearing a jacket?)
>>> "The bullets and shells did not match LHO's style of gun." <<<
A blatant lie.
>>> "You are assuming again that the shells found at the [Tippit] scene are the same ones found, right?" <<<
Huh? What's this double-speak? A form of Kook-Lingo, I suppose.
>>> "Poe initialed two shells, and yet his initials are nowhere to be found on the final evidence." <<<
Patrolman J.M. Poe said he didn't remember marking them, idiot. But be sure to ignore the following testimony:
JOSEPH BALL -- "Did you put any markings on the hulls?"
J.M. POE -- "I couldn't swear to it; no, sir."
>>> "They couldn't link Oswald's gun with the bullets taken out of JDT because the bullets were too mutilated." <<<
And yet, incredibly, you feel confident enough to know those "mutilated"
bullets were positively from an "automatic" gun, right? And those bullets,
therefore, couldn't possibly have come from Oz's gun, correct? (Go figure
the logic of this.)
Fact: The lead from the Tippit bullets was consistent with bullets
fired from Oswald's bored-out .38 Smith & Wesson revolver.
>>> "Even accepting that Oswald owned and possessed the weapon in question, and that the shells tested by the FBI had been fired from that weapon, the ballistics evidence is questionable." <<<
Only to a kook who wants Oswald innocent of this second November 22nd
murder too. To a reasonable person, however, the evidence is rock-solid,
and it all hangs your sweetheart named Lee Harvey.
>>> "At least you are being fair." <<<
It's just too bad you never are.
>>> "But they [the shell casings] simply don't match LHO's gun. His gun had work done (rechambered) to it and required a fatter shell case; the ones found did not have this characteristic." <<<
If you spout this lie 58 more times today it'll still be a lie.
All four shells in evidence were fired from Oswald's gun. Live with
it. Deal with it. It's called an irreversible "FACT". .....
MELVIN EISENBERG -- "By the way, on the cartridge cases, that was also to
the exclusion of all other weapons?"
JOSEPH D. NICOL -- "Correct."
Plus -- If you want to believe somebody was framing Oswald for the
Tippit murder too....why would they plant shells that could never in a
million years be traced to Ozzie's gun (via the "bulge" excuse that certain
conspiracy kooks constantly like to use)? That's nuts.
>>> "Only one person [positively identified Oswald as Tippit's lone killer] -- Helen Markham." <<<
Dead wrong, as usual. Three other witnesses did. But you'll ignore
Scoggins, Benavides, and Tatum. You have to. If you don't, Oswald is 4
times as guilty.
Plus, there are witnesses named Davis, Davis, Reynolds, Callaway,
Brock, Lewis, and Patterson -- who all saw Oswald fleeing the area of
the murder and saw NOBODY ELSE running from the crime scene.
But, maybe your "real killer" cloaked himself with the help of a
device supplied by James T. Kirk of the U.S.S. Enterprise.
Nice post, Rob. You managed to mangle 100% of the verified evidence
connected to Officer J.D. Tippit's murder. What a surprise.
BTW, why was there any need whatsoever to frame Oswald for Tippit's
murder too (as so many CT nuts seem to believe)?
If Oswald WASN'T really at the Tippit murder scene at all (as many
kooks firmly believe), then why wouldn't framing Oz for JUST the
President's murder have sufficed? Why complicate matters by trying to
set him up for DOUBLE the slayings on November 22nd?
So, per a lot of the kooks, the conspirators have doubled the
complexity of the case and doubled the chances of the patsy-framers
being caught by insisting upon needlessly framing LHO for Tippit's
Wouldn't Ozzie hang from his noose just as easily for JUST having
killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in Dealey Plaza?
(Do you see how stupid all this covert "frame-up" shit sounds when you
step outside its rickety framework for two seconds and peer in?)
David Von Pein
November 29, 2007